Mount Erebus is currently the most active volcano in Antarctica. The summit contains a persistent convecting phonolitic lava lake, one of a very few long-lived lava lakes in the world. Characteristic eruptive activity consists of Strombolian eruptions from the lava lake or from one of several subsidiary vents, all lying within the volcano's inner crater.[2][3] The volcano is scientifically remarkable in that its relatively low-level and unusually persistent eruptive activity enables long-term volcanological study of a Strombolian eruptive system very close (hundreds of metres) to the active vents, a characteristic shared with only a few volcanos worldwide, such as Stromboli in Italy. Scientific study of the volcano is also facilitated by the proximity (35 km) of McMurdo Station (US) and Scott Base (NZ), both sited on Ross Island.

[/CENTER]

Antarctica's most active volcano, so active that scientists can observe it from only a few hundred meters away.

Penguin Island is capped by Deacon Peak, a basaltic scoria cone. Deacon Peak was last thought to be active about 300 years ago. Petrel Crater, a maar crater, is located on the east side of the island, and is though to have last erupted in or around 1905.

Deception Island is an island in the South Shetland Islands off the Antarctic Peninsula which has one of the safest harbours in Antarctica. A recently active volcano, its eruptions in 1967 and 1969 caused serious damage to the scientific stations there.

The island is roughly triangular in shape, with long east and west coasts and a short north coast. It is approximately four kilometres in width at the north, and its maximum length is eight kilometres. The island is of volcanic origin, and is still volcanically active, the last eruption being in 1899.

[/CENTER]

And then?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

you know... i was wondering what the hell you meant by underground thermal activity because, well, such activity would not be detectable at the resolution of that figure, nor would you ever ever report subterranean geothermal activity under the ocean... so i went looking for the source of that image... it's not posted from nasa's site... nope... its posted on a site devoted to mocking the majority of climate scientist's work... it's not of subterranean geothermal activity... it's, by the site's reckoning, a measure of the change in surface temperatures but something is fishy there because... well... because the following is nasa's graph of the same:

so... um... why do people fake evidence in their arguments?

because they don't have supportable arguments...

edit: i finally did find the source of that figure... an earlier version of the one i posted... it seems that even better than faking data, one editorial staff is cherry picking OLD and known WRONG data (and using that fact as an argument (laughable))...

You are evading the main point, that point being your claim that NASA's map represents "underground thermal activity." It doesn't and it never has. SST means Sea Surface Temperature, surface temperature, get it?

Here's a couple more for you to misconstrue;

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

in other words, stop being a sheep -- you posted the image from a site whose take on this entire issue is identical to your own -- you had no evidence that this image was actually generated by nasa, other than the site's claim. you didn't seek it out yourself until you were backed into a corner -- any critical thinker would have questioned the veracity of this figure from the get go... you did not. if you had, you would have discovered the more recent and more accurate figure i posted. you would also have realized that the figure has nothing to do with geothermal activity, and even the page you got the figure from doesn't have evidence to support that conclusion. they certainly claim it, but then again, the posting that you are using (perhaps it is your own, although that would be surprising since you would have had to have completely lost the ability to remember what you wrote two days ago) is only two days old, which means that the author is a disingenuous idiot of the first order...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

in other words, stop being a sheep -- you posted the image from a site whose take on this entire issue is identical to your own -- you had no evidence that this image was actually generated by nasa, other than the site's claim. you didn't seek it out yourself until you were backed into a corner -- any critical thinker would have questioned the veracity of this figure from the get go... you did not. if you had, you would have discovered the more recent and more accurate figure i posted. you would also have realized that the figure has nothing to do with geothermal activity, and even the page you got the figure from doesn't have evidence to support that conclusion. they certainly claim it, but then again, the posting that you are using (perhaps it is your own, although that would be surprising since you would have had to have completely lost the ability to remember what you wrote two days ago) is only two days old, which means that the author is a disingenuous idiot of the first order...

So now you claim you know which web sites I view. How do you do that? I'd like to know.

More recent does Not mean more accurate, it only means more recent. What makes you think it's more accurate? NASA does not make that claim. The Fact is, you claimed the chart I posted did not come from NASA when in fact it did. You think subsurface temperature near a volcano is caused by ......what? ..... The air? The charts Do not show deep temperatures. Heat rises remember? Then there's that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics. Volcanos are hot. Where does the heat go? Up through the ground towards the cold.

So now you claim you know which web sites I view. How do you do that? I'd like to know.

little old something call following the url for the image... you are clearly out of your league here...

Quote:

More recent does Not mean more accurate, it only means more recent. What makes you think it's more accurate? NASA does not make that claim.

Actually nasa's statement that the version I posted is an updated version and the fact that there are wild swings between the version you posted and the one i posted means that mine is more accurate -- scientists don't repost less accurate data...

Quote:

The Fact is, you claimed the chart I posted did not come from NASA when in fact it did.

i don't believe i did in fact claim it didn't come from nasa...

Quote:

You think subsurface temperature near a volcano is caused by ......what? ..... The air? The charts Do not show deep temperatures. Heat rises remember? Then there's that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics. Volcanos are hot. Where does the heat go? Up through the ground towards the cold.

um... what?

you are off the charts... there is no data for subsurface temperatures...

the volcanoes are surrounded by water. water has a high specific heat and the currents around Antarctica are fast, meaning that the small amounts of heat coming from the volcanoes are negligible in terms of the over arching heating seen across the continent. in addition, the volcanoes are no more active than they have been in the recent past -- suggesting to all but the dumbest amongst us that their significance in heating the continent is um, non-existent.

in other words, the volcanoes could be responsible for melting ice near their top -- note that they are still covered by snow, however, and this implies they aren't really providing that much heat to their surroundings...

but whatever, you clearly don't understand how absurd it is to suggest that a single volcano is responsible for heating ice thousands of kilometers away... when surface temperatures across the planet are increasing...

it's sort of like sitting in the middle of an inferno and claiming that the source of the heat in a particular corner is caused by a small electric motor ...

some might call such a notion idiotic...

i am done with you, any further engagement will be a waste of my time, you do not appear to have the intellect to understand, the eye sight to see, or the ethical fortitude to admit that you were wrong, that you posted inaccurate data claiming it reveals details it does not, etc... you belong on my ignore list and there you will find yourself...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Yes SDW the earth is flat and Galileo is wrong.
We must save ourselves from progress it could make things better. Edison was an idiot for trying. It would be so mush better if we could all still live in caves!

Ahh...comparing TGW to Galileo. Pulling a Gore with "flat earthers." Nice. Tell me, are you capable of one, single original thought?

Quote:

The few thousand inventions along the way could make several billion $$$ and save our economy.

Or not.

Quote:

As we can now clearly see the invention of even the best weaponry and massive defense spending does not improve security.

However, most power lies in intellectual property. Toyota i.e is making massive $$ from licensing hybrid technology to US car makers. Not reacting to Global Warming has already harmed the US economy greatly.

That's just dumb. US companies don't innovate in this area? We're taking Japanese tech?

Quote:

My personal decision to "Go Green" has saved me ~100k in the last 3 years. It has accelerated my 3 businesses since "Green" is a major selling point and a very effective advertising slogan.

Prove it. Then show me how the government did it for you. That's the entire point..I'm all for private industry innovating and using the market. But it's ironic that while you tout your "personal decision," what you're really advocating is a government-imposed mandate.

Quote:

Only Stupid Dim Wits can not see this. SDW is anti business, anti progress, anti American, anti conservative and anti life.

(Is it you George?)

That is the silliest thing I've read in a long time.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What we HAVE done is accomplish nothing, destroying our economy as a result.

You would think that the typical republiscum having formed an orderly queue to rape their grandchildrens lives for a buck profit in warmongering - would be all over global warming - as indeed there is a ton of money to be made from it - and unlike most profit-related ventures, there could well be a vast improvement in the quality of life for everyone on the planet if we can do it right.

1. Excellent...Republiscums want WAR! WARMONGERS!
2. We can "fix" global warming and make Earth a paradise! Don't worry about how, we'll take care of that. Just send is more money. No worries.

Quote:

But you have to wonder, i know we all do regularly, what is seriously wrong with the republiscums?

ask them if they would like to carpet bomb a country they do not even know the location of - with the consequence that trillions of dollars will disappear down a black hole, hundreds of thousands of lives lost - nothing achieved except the killing of the most secular leader in the ME, leaving a gaping hole for extremist militants to fill the void, increasing the price of oil by 400% leaving little money left in the pockets of people so that they can keep the economy afloat. - They'll jump for it.

1. We didn't "carpet bomb" anything.
2. I'm quite certain many know the location of Iraq.
3. Trillions? That's a bit of an exaggeration. <segue to you posting some batshit projection>
4. Saddam was secular, therefore we should have just let him hang out. Bravo.
5. Extremists: They'll only fill the void if we leave with our tail between our legs, which happens to be exactly what you're advocating. Oh wait..I just got it: We should do everything possible to win The War on Global Warming, but not do everything possible to stabilize Iraq. I see.
6. Please show that invading Iraq was responsible for oil prices increasing "400" percent.

Quote:

Ask them if they'll take their unnafordable tax cuts now, and have their grandchildren pay it all back for them - They jump for it

Let's review: Tax cuts are not spending. The problem with our fiscal situation is not income, it's expenditures. Tax cuts also stimulate the economy and end up helping to increase revenues (BRussell...this is your cue to deny 50 years of historical fact).

Quote:

Ask them if they'll use all this money to overheat the economy and lead to the worst boom-bust situation in living memory - They'll jump for it

I don't know what that means, exactly.

Quote:

Ask them if they want to deregulate the financial markets so crooks can sell bits of paper noones ever seen for hundreds of billions that are essentially worthless. Maybe putting the economy into a 1920's depression - They'll jump for it.

Yeah, it's the Republicans that "deregulated" the financial markets. Shit...do you have any idea what the hell you're talking about...even a little bit?

Quote:

BUT

ask them if they would like to invest in some real infrastructure to avert the single most pressing issue of everyones human existance - that would clear the smog from our cities, remove the poisons from the seas, stop trillions of dollars of revenue from ending up in the hands of dictators and human rights abusers, alleviate the most pressing national security issue. Offering them the chance to make money from a new developing industry as it replaces an outdated dirty ancient practise....

The single most pressing issue of human existence? I see someone has been watching An Inconvenient Truth one to many times.

And...what is your solution for "clearing smog?"

...removing poisons from the seas?

...stop trillions of dollars going to "human rights abusers?" Who are these abusers? How would we stop that, exactly?

...alleviate the most pressing national security issue? Hmm...how about by DRILLING FOR DOMESTIC OIL??? Oh wait..we can't do that. Oil bad. Ethanol good.

...offering them chance? Because hey, it's the government doing the offering here, folks. How awesome of them...to give us a chance to change our ways! Viva Congress!

Quote:

And they'll find every silly little reason to sabotage the effort...."Risking a few $'s might dent our economy"....

What would be someone's motivation for saying that if he didn't believe it? Embracers of Teh Global Warming always seem to comment along the lines of "they'll say any silly thing to deny TGW exists." But they never explain what would motivate someone to take the position in the first place. For example, what is my motivation? You won't be able to answer with anything other than a "you're stupid." And that's the next line of TGW hysteria....no one capable of comprehending science---no---with a brain cell in his head...could possible disagree with the TGW. It's effing inconceivable!

Quote:

You shouldn't laugh at the mentally ill, handicapped spastics of our society, the losers who just dont get it, the weak of mind and the scared little sheep, but SDW....

Awesome...that took much less time than I expected!

Quote:

Oh I forgot, Jesus is coming next week so it dont matter

Man, you even got that in there! Kudos! I forgot about that one. No MarkUK post would be complete without a shot at evangelicals. Of course, I'm not one...but no matter. Really, it doesn't matter what you say. If called on it you'll just say you were embellishing or being cute. It doesn't matter how amazingly off base you are, or that you won't answer a single question I've posed.

In fact, you're the Hillary Rodham Clinton of AI.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Cold, snowy, and stuck at the bottom of the Earth, Antarctica might seem like a dull place. But this big continent can produce a surprisingly dynamic range of conditions. One example of this range is temperature trends. Although Antarctica warmed around the perimeter from 1982 to 2004, where huge icebergs calved and some ice shelves disintegrated, it cooled closer to the pole.

This image shows trends in skin temperaturestemperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land or sea surfacenot air temperatures. The data were collected by the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensors that were flown on several National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites. The data come from the AVHRRs thermal infrared channela portion of the light spectrum we can sense as heat but that human eyes cannot see. This image shows temperature trends for the icy continent from 1982 to 2004. Red indicates areas where temperatures generally increased during that period, and blue shows where temperatures predominantly decreased.

The area of strongest cooling appears at the South Pole, and the region of strongest warming lies along the Antarctic Peninsula. In some instances, bright red spots or streaks along the edge of the continent show where icebergs calved or ice shelves disintegrated, meaning the satellite began seeing warmer ocean water where there had previously been ice. One example of this is the bright red line along the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf.

Why is Antarctica getting colder in the middle when its warming up around the edge? One possible explanation is that the warmer temperatures in the surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continents interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole. Another possible explanation involves ozone. Ozone in the Earths stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms the stratosphere. Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continents interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.

there is no way that the image Mystic posted was correct nor the subsequent quote based upon that image... NASA posted the update last year, and it covers the same time range as the original image. The original image (the one Mystic posted) was WRONG...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

there is no way that the image Mystic posted was correct nor the subsequent quote based upon that image... NASA posted the update last year, and it covers the same time range as the original image. The original image (the one Mystic posted) was WRONG...

1. Excellent...Republiscums want WAR! WARMONGERS!
2. We can "fix" global warming and make Earth a paradise! Don't worry about how, we'll take care of that. Just send is more money. No worries.

1. We didn't "carpet bomb" anything.
2. I'm quite certain many know the location of Iraq.
3. Trillions? That's a bit of an exaggeration. <segue to you posting some batshit projection>
4. Saddam was secular, therefore we should have just let him hang out. Bravo.
5. Extremists: They'll only fill the void if we leave with our tail between our legs, which happens to be exactly what you're advocating. Oh wait..I just got it: We should do everything possible to win The War on Global Warming, but not do everything possible to stabilize Iraq. I see.
6. Please show that invading Iraq was responsible for oil prices increasing "400" percent.

Let's review: Tax cuts are not spending. The problem with our fiscal situation is not income, it's expenditures. Tax cuts also stimulate the economy and end up helping to increase revenues (BRussell...this is your cue to deny 50 years of historical fact).

I don't know what that means, exactly.

Yeah, it's the Republicans that "deregulated" the financial markets. Shit...do you have any idea what the hell you're talking about...even a little bit?

The single most pressing issue of human existence? I see someone has been watching An Inconvenient Truth one to many times.

And...what is your solution for "clearing smog?"

...removing poisons from the seas?

...stop trillions of dollars going to "human rights abusers?" Who are these abusers? How would we stop that, exactly?

...alleviate the most pressing national security issue? Hmm...how about by DRILLING FOR DOMESTIC OIL??? Oh wait..we can't do that. Oil bad. Ethanol good.

...offering them chance? Because hey, it's the government doing the offering here, folks. How awesome of them...to give us a chance to change our ways! Viva Congress!

What would be someone's motivation for saying that if he didn't believe it? Embracers of Teh Global Warming always seem to comment along the lines of "they'll say any silly thing to deny TGW exists." But they never explain what would motivate someone to take the position in the first place. For example, what is my motivation? You won't be able to answer with anything other than a "you're stupid." And that's the next line of TGW hysteria....no one capable of comprehending science---no---with a brain cell in his head...could possible disagree with the TGW. It's effing inconceivable!

Awesome...that took much less time than I expected!

Man, you even got that in there! Kudos! I forgot about that one. No MarkUK post would be complete without a shot at evangelicals. Of course, I'm not one...but no matter. Really, it doesn't matter what you say. If called on it you'll just say you were embellishing or being cute. It doesn't matter how amazingly off base you are, or that you won't answer a single question I've posed.

In fact, you're the Hillary Rodham Clinton of AI.

As many have said before there's a certain comfort in some things never changing. At least you know what to expect. I'm sorry but you keep doing this in the face of the obvious!

Yes let's just list all the ( almost rhetorical ) things that emphasize your polarity.

Well as the emperor in " The Jedi Strikes Back " says : " It's you who are wrong about a great many things ".

That's the most positive spin I can put on your response.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

One thing that is completely obvious is that some people will, on the basis of temporary monetary gain, deny even the possibility of global warming until it is too late and then all monetary gains will be meaningless.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

One thing that is completely obvious is that some people will, on the basis of temporary monetary gain, deny even the possibility of global warming until it is too late and then all monetary gains will be meaningless.

Tell me, do I stand to benefit monetarily?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I know, I know. What was I thinking, linking to a body devoted to sussing out whether global warming is real, whether it's man-made, and what we oughta do if it is real and man-made. I mean, hell, what do all of these climate scientists know?! Tell us, music teacher! What are your theories on this immensely complex topic and why should I believe you over people who have devoted their lives to the study of the subject?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I know, I know. What was I thinking, linking to a body devoted to sussing out whether global warming is real, whether it's man-made, and what we oughta do if it is real and man-made. I mean, hell, what do all of these climate scientists know?! Tell us, music teacher! What are your theories on this immensely complex topic and why should I believe you over people who have devoted their lives to the study of the subject?

Yeah..it's a noble organization with no political agenda. All of the people within it are noble, and smart, and...noble. They don't make mistakes or rely on questionable data. They don't ignore data that runs contrary to their pre-determined notions. And the IPCC is dedicated to determining whether or not Teh Global Warming is real or not. See, it's entirely objective.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yeah..it's a noble organization with no political agenda. All of the people within it are noble, and smart, and...noble. They don't make mistakes or rely on questionable data. They don't ignore data that runs contrary to their pre-determined notions. And the IPCC is dedicated to determining whether or not Teh Global Warming is real or not. See, it's entirely objective.

... therefore we are to take the 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1. WG2 and WR3 reports as being the most authoritative, objective, peer reviewed, and thorough international study on global climate change conducted to date, involving hundreds of subject matter experts (SME), and thousands of SME reviewers.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I prefer this to wikipedia for a source. What a bunch of lemmings.....http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?....0.CO%3B2&ct=1
"There have been two 20-yr time periods during the last century when the rate of increase in temperature was especially large, namely, 192544 and 197897"

I prefer this to wikipedia for a source. What a bunch of lemmings.....http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?....0.CO%3B2&ct=1
"There have been two 20-yr time periods during the last century when the rate of increase in temperature was especially large, namely, 192544 and 197897"

That's a pretty bizarre quotation to pull from the essayas if it somehow refutes global warming. Here's the salient bit of the conclusion:

Quote:

Among the key results of this study are the followinga) satellite infrared data provide spatially detailed maps of surface temperature in the Antarctic region with an accuracy of 3°C; (b) a predominance of positive trends in surface air temperature is observed in station data when a 45-yr record length is used, while a slightly negative trend is observed from both station and satellite data when the 20-yr record length is used; (c) satellite data reveal anomalously high temperatures in large areas of the Antarctic plateau (e.g., 1980, 1981, and 1995) and anomalously low temperatures in the ice shelves (e.g., Ross Ice Shelf in 1985); and (d) alternating warm and cold anomalies in the sea ice region around the continent are observed and shown to be correlated with the limits in the extent (and concentration) of the sea ice cover and the expected effect of the Antarctic circumpolar wave (ACW).

This is largely an essay about using a specific kind of satellite technology to gather data about surface temperature. What they note is that when you use this kind of tech, these anomalies pop up, despite there being a "predominance of positive trends in surface air temperature when a 45-year length is used." The point is most certainly NOT "Doods! There's no global warming!" The point is that this technology reveals some weird anomalies within a clear warming trend. Period.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Yeah..it's a noble organization with no political agenda. All of the people within it are noble, and smart, and...noble. They don't make mistakes or rely on questionable data. They don't ignore data that runs contrary to their pre-determined notions. And the IPCC is dedicated to determining whether or not Teh Global Warming™ is real or not. See, it's entirely objective.

So how do you ever form opinions about things of which you have no direct expertise?

If the IPCC is this compromised, agenda driven entity, wouldn't I be even less likely to take the word of people funded, directly or indirectly, by the oil industry? Don't they make mistakes and rely on questionable data and ignore data that runs contrary their agenda, as well? And last time I checked, there is a great deal more money involved in the oil industry than there is in whatever the enviromental/UN/hippy/science complex thing that people like you seem to believe in.

But why leave it there? What authoritative body claiming expertise on any topic couldn't be brusquely dismissed in the same terms? Doctors? Lawyers? Physicists? Clergymen? Plumbers?

Name me something you claim to know, SDW, that involves any kind of knowledge requiring expertise you don't have, and I can very easily insist that you must be wrong because the people who do claim expertise are, well, people.

That's why reasonably sentient adults make judgments, all the time, about what constitutes "reasonable authority" on matters outside of their own expertise (which in our interconnected, technological world is a great deal, so it's a pretty vital process). "Those dudes are all pompous and think they're all noble and shit and probably make mistakes or have motives" is a really terrible reason for rejecting a candidate for authority, since at one stroke you pretty much eliminate everyone.

Instead, as a lay person, I am inclined to check out what the experts are saying without worrying too much if these experts are given to human failings, since there ought to be a broad enough sampling to correct for whatever eccentricities might be introduced by individual perversity.

And since, in the matter of climate change, agendas and errors and errata are surely an artifact of any interpretation of the data you care to adopt, I had best go with what the majority of the people with the most expertise think, right?

And then it's no contest: the vast majority of the people with the most expertise think that human drive climate change is real, accelerating, and is likely to have very bad effects, as far as people are concerned.

Since that's indisputable, all the dark muttering about why those experts would have come to that conclusion doesn't mean a thing, since I can mutter just as darkly about the motivations of people who deny the reality of climate change, and we're right back to "what the majority of the experts think", the only real criteria (layman that I am) that seems useful.

Unless "knowledge" doesn't mean what I think it means, and is just this sort of contingent thing that rests on baseless assertions, the validity of which are determined by mechanisms other than "authority".

At which point you get to meet Midwinter in midair and have a chat about post-modernism and French deconstructionists, which, I assure you, he would be more than happy to have. A word of warning though: he knows more about it than you do, although his claim to that effect is merely an artifact of the power structure of academia (with its, you know, agendas and errors and shit).

So you have to start by acknowledging that the philosophy that you are apparently subscribing to can't be authoritatively demonstrated to exist, and your time with Midwinter would be as constructively spent trading sign language non sequiturs.

But that's your world, we just pretend to live in it. Maybe.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

snip
And since, in the matter of climate change, agendas and errors and errata are surely an artifact of any interpretation of the data you care to adopt, I had best go with what the majority of the people with the most expertise think, right?

ALL major scientific discoveries were made by someone going AGAINST the majority of experts.

So how do you ever form opinions about things of which you have no direct expertise?

If the IPCC is this compromised, agenda driven entity, wouldn't I be even less likely to take the word of people funded, directly or indirectly, by the oil industry? Don't they make mistakes and rely on questionable data and ignore data that runs contrary their agenda, as well? And last time I checked, there is a great deal more money involved in the oil industry than there is in whatever the enviromental/UN/hippy/science complex thing that people like you seem to believe in.

But why leave it there? What authoritative body claiming expertise on any topic couldn't be brusquely dismissed in the same terms? Doctors? Lawyers? Physicists? Clergymen? Plumbers?

Name me something you claim to know, SDW, that involves any kind of knowledge requiring expertise you don't have, and I can very easily insist that you must be wrong because the people who do claim expertise are, well, people.

That's why reasonably sentient adults make judgments, all the time, about what constitutes "reasonable authority" on matters outside of their own expertise (which in our interconnected, technological world is a great deal, so it's a pretty vital process). "Those dudes are all pompous and think they're all noble and shit and probably make mistakes or have motives" is a really terrible reason for rejecting a candidate for authority, since at one stroke you pretty much eliminate everyone.

Instead, as a lay person, I am inclined to check out what the experts are saying without worrying too much if these experts are given to human failings, since there ought to be a broad enough sampling to correct for whatever eccentricities might be introduced by individual perversity.

And since, in the matter of climate change, agendas and errors and errata are surely an artifact of any interpretation of the data you care to adopt, I had best go with what the majority of the people with the most expertise think, right?

And then it's no contest: the vast majority of the people with the most expertise think that human drive climate change is real, accelerating, and is likely to have very bad effects, as far as people are concerned.

Since that's indisputable, all the dark muttering about why those experts would have come to that conclusion doesn't mean a thing, since I can mutter just as darkly about the motivations of people who deny the reality of climate change, and we're right back to "what the majority of the experts think", the only real criteria (layman that I am) that seems useful.

Unless "knowledge" doesn't mean what I think it means, and is just this sort of contingent thing that rests on baseless assertions, the validity of which are determined by mechanisms other than "authority".

At which point you get to meet Midwinter in midair and have a chat about post-modernism and French deconstructionists, which, I assure you, he would be more than happy to have. A word of warning though: he knows more about it than you do, although his claim to that effect is merely an artifact of the power structure of academia (with its, you know, agendas and errors and shit).

So you have to start by acknowledging that the philosophy that you are apparently subscribing to can't be authoritatively demonstrated to exist, and your time with Midwinter would be as constructively spent trading sign language non sequiturs.

But that's your world, we just pretend to live in it. Maybe.

I am simply saying this; The IPCC is not perfect in any sense. I'm not saying it's all bunk...I'm saying that it's unbalanced in its conclusions, some of which have already been challenged by various scientists.

As for "experts," read their own mission statement:

Quote:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Hmmm. If you look at what the IPCC does, it has nothing to do with determining if Teh Global Warming is real. It accepts it as fact, then makes predictions..and policy recommendations based on those (ridiculous) predictions.

There are numerous examples of how screwed up the IPCC actually is, from using faulty data unknowingly, to using faulty data knowingly. I assume you're aware of their emission scenario problems? Long story short: They assumed emissions would grow at an unreal rate because of the development of Third World nations. Problem is, they grossly overestimated that development. And have they corrected it despite realizing the mistake? No. They continue to use same assumptions. That's just one example...there are more.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

ALL major scientific discoveries were made by someone going AGAINST the majority of experts.

So your argument is we should discern what the majority of experts believe and believe the opposite?

It's a fallacious argument akin to reasoning that because a long shot occasionally wings the Kentucky Derby, that's where the smart money is.

Most of the time science is conducted by the slow accumulation of evidence, particularly in a field like climate modeling, which is unlikely to be radically overturned by a new idea along the lines of electromagnetism.

At any rate, there's nothing remotely like that going on in the skeptic community-- they just like to promulgate distortions of what most climate scientists are saying, or fixate on irrelevant instances of error, or fulminate against hippies. Not a Maxwell in the bunch.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I am simply saying this; The IPCC is not perfect in any sense. I'm not saying it's all bunk...I'm saying that it's unbalanced in its conclusions, some of which have already been challenged by various scientists.

And yet that's my point: there are indeed "various scientists" that challenge such conclusions, but they are massively outnumbered by those that provided the data to reach such conclusions in the first place.

If by "unbalanced" you mean "fails to give due weight to the tiny minority of people, many of them directly funded by the oil industry, who disagree", then I guess we'll have to differ on the meaning of "balance".

Quote:

As for "experts," read their own mission statement:

Hmmm. If you look at what the IPCC does, it has nothing to do with determining if Teh Global Warming is real. It accepts it as fact, then makes predictions..and policy recommendations based on those (ridiculous) predictions.

It accepts it as fact because that is the consensus of the experts in the field. Their predications may or may not pan out, but that is what they are charged with doing: assembling the best available evidence, as provided by the vast majority of experts in the field, attempt to extrapolate what that might mean for member countries long term, and recommend policy based on that. There's nothing "ridiculous" about it, once you get past the idea that climate change itself is some bizarre conspiracy to take away your SUV.

Quote:

There are numerous examples of how screwed up the IPCC actually is, from using faulty data unknowingly, to using faulty data knowingly. I assume you're aware of their emission scenario problems? Long story short: They assumed emissions would grow at an unreal rate because of the development of Third World nations. Problem is, they grossly overestimated that development. And have they corrected it despite realizing the mistake? No. They continue to use same assumptions. That's just one example...there are more.

That speaks against the reality of climate change, how, exactly? You want to conflate the messy business of crafting long term policy (which is political and sociological) with the science of climate change, which isn't.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Hmmm. If you look at what the IPCC does, it has nothing to do with determining if Teh Global Warming is real. It accepts it as fact, then makes predictions..and policy recommendations based on those (ridiculous) predictions.

So you don't like it that the IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed research of the scientific community to make policy recommendations?

WTF world do you live in? This isn't even about global warming anymore. It's about why on earth you seem to think that experts in the field are apparently blithering idiots who don't know anything.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

So your argument is we should discern what the majority of experts believe and believe the opposite?

Again, beliefs are not science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

It's a fallacious argument akin to reasoning that because a long shot occasionally wings the Kentucky Derby, that's where the smart money is.

It's not about who "wins" It's about proper Science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Most of the time science is conducted by the slow accumulation of evidence, particularly in a field like climate modeling, which is unlikely to be radically overturned by a new idea along the lines of electromagnetism.

climate modeling is a VERY young science. Surely you aren't suggesting that there is nothing new to learn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

At any rate, there's nothing remotely like that going on in the skeptic community-- they just like to promulgate distortions of what most climate scientists are saying, or fixate on irrelevant instances of error, or fulminate against hippies. Not a Maxwell in the bunch.

So, all errors are irrelevant and All voices of dissent (even scientific ones) are distortions the facts?

I am simply saying this; The IPCC is not perfect in any sense. I'm not saying it's all bunk...I'm saying that it's unbalanced in its conclusions, some of which have already been challenged by various scientists.

As for "experts," read their own mission statement:

Hmmm. If you look at what the IPCC does, it has nothing to do with determining if Teh Global Warming is real. It accepts it as fact, then makes predictions..and policy recommendations based on those (ridiculous) predictions.

There are numerous examples of how screwed up the IPCC actually is, from using faulty data unknowingly, to using faulty data knowingly. I assume you're aware of their emission scenario problems? Long story short: They assumed emissions would grow at an unreal rate because of the development of Third World nations. Problem is, they grossly overestimated that development. And have they corrected it despite realizing the mistake? No. They continue to use same assumptions. That's just one example...there are more.

It's right above this sentence, and it's 100% wrong!

[CENTER]

Quote:

Scenario families contain individual scenarios with common themes. The six families of scenarios discussed in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are A1FI, A1B, A1T, A2, B1, and B2.

Scenario descriptions are based on those in AR4, which are identical to those in TAR. [2]

A1

The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:

Rapid economic growth.
A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.

There are subsets to the A1 family based on their technological emphasis:

The A2 scenarios are of a more divided world. The A2 family of scenarios is characterized by:

A world of independently operating, self-reliant nations.
Continuously increasing population.
Regionally oriented economic development.
Slower and more fragmented technological changes and improvements to per capita income.

B1

The B1 scenarios are of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly. The B1 scenarios are characterized by:

Rapid economic growth as in A1, but with rapid changes towards a service and information economy.
Population rising to 9 billion in 2050 and then declining as in A1.
Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies.
An emphasis on global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.

B2

The B2 scenarios are of a world more divided, but more ecologically friendly. The B2 scenarios are characterized by:

Continuously increasing population, but at a slower rate than in A2.
Emphasis on local rather than global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.
Intermediate levels of economic development.
Less rapid and more fragmented technological change than in B1 and A1.